Mountains of rock become grains of sand to be once again welded as rock. The cycle is both perpetual and necessary. Likewise ideas must be broken down periodically into their fundamental elements to be reassembled as sound pillars of guidance and virtue. The cycle of men is like that of sand.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Mr.AtosNow that Terri Schindler has passed away, attention has turned appropriately to Michael Schiavo and the team that he assembled for his long campaign to execute his estranged wife. At the head of that team is Attorney and euthanasia advocate, George Felos. I think that it is important for history to remember Mr. Felos for the epic and infamous accomplishment of channeling the power of the the United States judicial system to the favor of his sadistic agenda using Terri Schindler as a sacrificial offering to his abominable mission.Judi McCleod of the Toronto Free Press is uncovering some very interesting facts about the Schiavo team that the Old Busted Media has otherwise neglected to review or has simply (and most likely)ignored. (HT: Rush Limbaugh)Over at RadioBlogger, Duane has posted excerpts from Felos' book. History deserves to remember this man, Felos, and his contribution indefinitely. And what better way to manifest a person's infamy than to codify it in language in perpetuity. So I am proposing to inaugurate a new word to be used from this day forth in common blogese until such time as it is added to Webster's as an official addition to the English language.felosious (fee-losh-eyus) or felosian (fee-losh-eyan)adj.Now we need a good definition. I have a few in mind, but I thought I'd leave it to our readers and the rest of the blogosphere to decide. So please, by all means submit your definitions and they will be posted accordingly until Dueler and I decide on the best comprehensive definition to establish.UPDATE:03.31.05:23:18and ongoing

felosious (fee-losh-eyus) adj. - 1. posessing a sadistic fascination with the death of others, especially children and injured animals; manifesting or characterized by an unusual obsession with death.2. vicariously projecting extreme self-loathing; a violent degree of self-hatred manifested in sadistic manipulation.felos (fee-loss) n. - a nocturnal parasite that feeds on carrion.

felosipher (fee-los-if-er) n. - charlattan; con man; grifter. (WKUHilltopper)felosite (fee-los-ite) n. - dupe; idiot or moron. (WKUHilltopper)felosious (fee-losh-eyus) or felosian(fee-losh-eyan) adj. - incredibly active and duplicitous while promoting the death of other humans using a variety of illegal, conspiratorial, PR, fiduciary, and other means for profit. (Diogenesis)felosious (fee-losh-eyus) adj. - 1. to carry the mindset of the want of death; a distaste for human life; soulless; in need of divine thought; corrupted. 2. of little use to anything or anyone but themselves 3. mockery of what is good. 4. having a love for the color green. 5. into one's self; judgmental; insensitive 6. demented; showing an appreciation for the demented. 7. out of the mainstream; confused; lacking of pure thought; lost; misdirected; prone to obscure thought 8. lustful (EGPWS)felosian (fee-losh-eyan) adj. - creepy, particularly in relation to sadism. (NautiNurse)

Terri will not die in vain, and she will not die for the unearned guilt imposed by a nihilistic generation of vitriolic juvenile parasites bred on progressive relativism, nurturing their own suicidal state of moral confusion and self-loathing anguish to such a pathetic degree that they wish to inflict it on the very culture on which they feed... thus destroying both. She will perish with the grief of a Nation of Men and Woman who will regret her passing, long in her absence and forever celebrate the time she spent on this Earth and the unity that flourished about her light in these final days terminating in Spring of the 5th year of the third millennium during the celebration of the sacrifice of one man that began the clock by changing mankind… and giving us the blessings of the lives that we cherish with such passion.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

... is my enemy. So goes the thinking on the Left. So embittered with their political adversaries that they would neglect avenues of common ground on cultural issues prefering instead to side with their own malevolent fringe and demonize any and all degrees of opposition. Capitalizing on slight rifts among voices of the Right during its unified pleading for moral fortitude on fundamental concepts of decency, voices of the Left are taking this opportunity to harvest division from seeds of bigotry and fear.

With each day, the cacophony worsens as some journalists abandon all (or even no) pretense of reason to fashion the pires of inquisition. Over at Rightwing Nuthouse, Superhawk records New York Times' Columnist, Paul Krugman's complete break with sanity today. Siezing on the raw emotions of some activists, Krugman attempts to paint a picture of the faithful as a swarming insurgency poised for violent revolution...

... nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

But, even as he feigns marginal solidarity with 'soft' Conservatives, Krugman is basically condemning their common sensibilties for the sake of vilification of all Republicans. Indeed, in his prognostications of violent lawlessness by the majority party, he ignors entirely the enormous deference paid by Both President Bush and Governor Bush to the rulings handed down from the courts. It's a factual obfuscation not lost on the folks at Powerline.

A schism certainly exists on the political Right. The discontinuity is exposed by serious debates regarding profound cultural conflicts. Passions were united in this case over the issue of the sanctity of life, as one might expect of a people dedicated to common purpose. The fundamentals are never in question. The major rift occurs regarding the government's role in the solution. Here I ask the reader to ignor labels for the sake of meaning with regard to terminology. Conservative voices on the Right argue in favor of Reason. Consistent with their principles, they have engaged the matter to the full extent of legal remedy, to the limits of Constitutional protocol, in the true spirit of American debate. And having exhausted all options to no avail, and lost the argument, are resigned to accept the judgment of a legal process... on the one hand. Yet, there is a subsequent dedication to a continuation of the primary debate on the other.

At the liberal fringe of the Right, there exist the activists - faithfully devout for the most part - who having likewise lost the argument, are now willing to damn the process in favor of immediate and impetuous remedy. Recognizing the intemperance of a rogue judiciary, they seek a radical solution beyond the propriety of legitimate authority... the primacy of life being sole justification in this case, for chaos.

If voices of Reason prevailed on the Left, one might think they would recognize some common purpose with the conservative sideof recent arguments. They might have embraced open debate over fundamental principle, yet urged cautionwith regard to further government involvement in matters of life, thus defending the supremacy of the process while resolving to accept the confines of legal jurisdiction. Afterall, the Left professes similar devotion to freedom and independence from speech to gender rights. The ACLU argues relentlessly for the lives of the condemned and mercy for the butchers of a real fascist Kleptocracy. Woman are perceived to be oppressed by men, especially their husbands who might want them to remain silent in their place. An Executive administration might use brute military force to compell domestic fanatics, or sieze children from their family in defiance of court order. A Chief executive might even be entitled to the privacy of his particular unseemly perversions as long as the foible does not yield judgments on policy as might be the case with the strength and integrity of faith. The Left fears the imperatives of faith over the jurisdiction of law, embraces dissent, and lauds judicial activism. All of these issues continue to be aspects of the Right's schism.

And yet in this case, the Left has comprehensively rejected the obvious commonality of perspective regarding those very same issues at present. They have instead chosen to reveal the truth of their actual dogma. The fringe of the ideological Left champions civil disobediance and we are encouraged to transcend. They burn and destroy cities at whim and we are urged to understand their rage. They talk of assassination and we are lectured in the virtue of free speech. They set homes on fire, and we are petitioned for lenience. They bloviate incessant hyperbole and we are cautioned to humor. They challenge States' rights, cultural tradition and Constitutional manifest, and we are forced to submit to their will. The truth is that their only principle is a ruthless devotion to political supremacy at any cost. It is a cheap luxury to be sure, when the currency peddled is counterfeit to begin with... and margined on the blood of the infirm and unborn.

Regardless, in the end, the enemy of our friend is still our enemy. Yet we are all brethren under the same flag. Reciprocal tolerance is afforded accordingly. And although folks like Krugman and his fellows in the ranks of Old Busted Media choose to ignor the facts, the current debate actually defies party lines, even if not ideological ones. Afterall, we are a people ostensibly united along the lines of common principle toward the goal of the greatest individual liberty for the broadest common good. (Edited 03.30.05:16:12)Aren't we?...UPDATE: 03.30.05:13:09Did I forget Andrew Sullivan? No! I just don't think he's as relevant as he thinks he is. Mr. Sullivan seems to be engaged in a fascinating debate about what he is about, what he believes, what he is. None of which produces anything meaningful whatsoever.

Monday, March 28, 2005

Mr. AtosThe Wall Street Journal today reports that the death toll has peaked 100 in an Angola outbreak of Marburg hemorrhagic fever. Cases have spread from near Congo's border to Luanda. For anyone who hasn't read Preston's terrifying true story accounts, Marburg is closely related Ebola. According to the CDC, the disease was first seen in 1967 in Germany and Yugoslavia when laboratory workers who had been exposed to monkeys imported from Uganda became ill along with family members. And while occurances of the pathogen are rare, this particular occurance has a mortality rate of around 93% according to CIDRAP, making it extremely dangerous; far in excess of the 25% being reported by AFP. Latest sources are reporting this to be the worst outbreak ever recorded. And while three-quarters of the deaths so far have been children under the age of five, according to the WHO, the virus has also started to claim more adult victims including at least seven medical workers and two foreign doctors. The Center For Infectious Disease Research & Policy reports,

There is no vaccine or cure for Marburg fever. Besides fever and weakness, early symptoms include severe diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, severe chest pain, sore throat, and cough, according to the WHO. The incubation period is 3 to 9 days, and most deaths in the current outbreak have occurred between 3 and 7 days after symptoms appeared, the agency has said. Contact with bodily fluids of infected people increases the risk of infection.

The WHO reports the last outbreak of this disease was in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1998 and 2000, when 123 people died. While this current outbreak is reported to have begun in October of last year, the situation has worsened in the past three weeks with the death toll today reaching 126, and another 132 infected hospitalized.The World Health Organization has dispatched an outbreak response team to the area to work with local officials and help subdue the crisis.

Mr. AtosOf all the wonderful Easter sentiments that I read expressed yesterday, by far the most profound was that of Wretchard over at the Belmont Club. It is a long read, but very important.We spent a full day with the boys, from breakfast in the comfort of community, through messages of eternal optimism, to joyful reminiscence with aged-old friends over libations and cedar-smoked salmon watching the children recreate our childhood one step at a time. It was indeed a celebration of renewal. After weeks of exhaustive effort defending the foundations of moral principle like an infant in the scent of starving wolves, the endeavor has hardly ended. The week begins with both pain and perserverance. (HT: Hugh Hewitt) With cautious arrogance regarding a repugnant victory, the Left is rallying opposition for the next skirmish at hand. The Senate is poised this week to do battle over judicial nominations. The Republicans should finally be prepared and indeed invigorated to exercise the "Constitutional Option" to subdue continuing Democrat filibuster of President Bush's outstanding judicial nominations, thus bringing them before the Senate for a straight up or down vote.Should be...Following a public melee between two united branches of popular government, against the resolute obstinance of the third branch over fundamental issues of liberty, the stage is set to determine the nature of Constitutional Democracy in this Representative Republic, here an now. Will appointed members of the judiciary make law, define policy, and determine the limits of life, liberty and property? Or will the elected representatives of the people in the legislative and executive branches remain the framers of freedom among a people united by common purpose and principle?

Despite the outrageous hyperbole on parade in the sentiments of journalists like Frank Rich, or Maureen Dowd, bloggers like Jeff Jarvis and JoeGandelman , nothing has changed in the United States since the 2004 election flushed blue-spot sensibilities to the outer fringe of American culture; affirming that moral integrity is not solely a religious value, it happens to be fundamental imperative of reason. Republicans must rise beyond the persecution of these cultural termites, to the challenge of their statesmanship... both in Washington D.C. and at home. Lend Senator Frist and encouraging word. And Let Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), John McCain (Arizona), and Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) know that Network push polls may attempt to manipulate public opinion, but they do not represent it. The passion is still with us today. Do let's embrace it.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Mr.AtosOver at RegimeChangeIran, Dr. Zin directs readers to an article by Elan Journo writing for the Ayn Rand Institute: Death to "Diplomacy" with Iran. Journo discusses the emminent danger of negotiating with psychopaths, noting that Iran is a theocratic tyrannical menace that seeks to strengthen it's geopolitical position by rogue force and nuclear threat. The Europeans, in another attempt to pacify imposing aggression, are again demonstrating suicidal weakness in the face of resolute brutality.

This approach of diplomacy-with-anyone-at-any-cost necessarily results in nourishing one's enemy and sharpening its fangs. That is what happened under a 1994 deal with communist North Korea. In return for boatloads of aid and oil from the United States, Japan and other nations, North Korea promised not to develop nuclear weapons.

Despite U.N. inspections, North Korea flouted the agreement repeatedly. When caught cheating, it promised anew to end its nuclear program in return for more "incentives." In February 2005 North Korea declared (plausibly) that it had succeeded in building nuclear weapons. Another, older attempt to buy peace by giving "incentives" to an enemy was a cataclysmic failure. In 1938 the Europeans pretended that Hitler's intentions were not really hostile, and insisted that "peace in our time" could be attained by allowing him to walk into Czechoslovakia. Instead, he was emboldened to launch World War II.

Ignoring the lessons of history, the Europeans are advocating a deal with Iran that likewise purchases the reckless pretence of peace today, at the cost of unleashing catastrophic dangers tomorrow.

To protect American (and European) lives, we must learn the life-or-death importance of passing objective moral judgment. We must recognize the character of Iran and act accordingly. By any rational standard, Iran should be condemned and its nuclear ambition thwarted, now. The brazenly amoral European gambit can only aid its quest--and necessitate a future confrontation with a bolder, stronger Iran.

The entire article is a must read. Again we see the Europeans gambling for the privilege to be butchered last, with the Jews as ante. And when Saracens are threatening the western bastions, torching populations in atomic fire to satisfy an absolute devotion to their principles, how many millions will perish in this century for the convenience of Western ignorance? (edited 03.27.05:20:16)

Thursday, March 24, 2005

The buzzing you hear in the background is the consuming mouthsaws of change. Reasonable efforts have failed to save Terri Schiavo or the virtue of an adolescent Nation. And unlike our irrational counterparts, we on the Right are not prone to that which is unreasonable. Rationality is our saw and the truth will be rendered in monumental ediface for the ages of humanity to learn that the enemies of the living flourished in the dawn of the third milennium in the medium of misplaced tolerance on the bounty of fools, and consumed their last helpless victim in an orgy of scornful depravity, before being forever vanquished by the realization of their own malevolence. History is speaking loudly this week and we can be sure that it will not be euthanized.

Doug TenNapelgoes there... albeit with a powerful historical analysis and comparison that lends credibility to an otherwise hyberbolic rhetorical charge. He's one blogger that saws right through the scat dropping from the backside of the bull, which is why we've added him to the roll. His point is sobering.

OKIE on the LAM discusses a point made here regarding the implications and consequences of Terri's plight. Thank you for the kind words and the link, Okie Boy (now I got it right!).

Of significant interest, is the claim by ABC News the Washington Post that the GOP circulated a "talking points" memorandum regarding the Terri Schiavo case outlining how the Republicans could capitalize politically with the issue. It looks as though that story is a bit dubious, as the folks at Powerline dig for evidence...

The evidence we have so far is not conclusive, but it points in the direction of a dirty trick by the Democrats. The onus is certainly on Mike Allen of the Post and ABC News, if they actually have evidence that the memo is genuine, to tell us what that evidence is. In any event, however, the suggestion that this is some kind of high-level Republican strategy memo is ludicrous.

In a follow-up post, the story has become even more... curious,

ABC News, the original source of the story on the alleged "GOP talking points" memo now appears to be backing off the story. Blogger Josh Clayborn has been talking to ABC representatives, both on and off the record, and they are now telling him that they never meant to imply that the "talking points" memo originated with the Republicans--only that it was given to some Republican Senators. See his most recent posts at In the Agora.

ABC's current position, as reported by Josh, makes little sense, as their coverage certainly did say that this was a Republican memo. (ABC's website described the memo as containing "GOP talking points.") But the fact that they are now backing off suggests that in reality, they have no idea where the memo came from.

Who are the goblins attempting to capitalize on Terri Schiavo's tragedy? The saws keep carving. See Michelle Malkin's addition. to the story.The American Spectator probes it as well.Robert Novak slices through the inane rhetoric of beltway journalists and malicious activists that seeks to deny people's integrity and label their passion for life as political folly...

The intensity was brought home to me at the Saturday dinner party. A fellow journalist asked me what I thought about the congressional intervention. When I responded that I approved, several colleagues asked how in the world I, of all people, could approve of federal intervention in local affairs. I told them I did not care about that issue but wondered why they were so anxious to end Terri Schiavo's life. They responded that Republicans in Congress were only interested in politics...

The harsh views expressed in a private social situation Saturday were spelled out openly over CNN Monday morning by the network's resident curmudgeon, veteran television journalist Jack Cafferty: "It's all about politics. It has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo. This is all about the abortion debate and right to life and the right wing of the Republican Party. And it's all cloaked in some, you know, mantra that says, 'Oh, we're worried about this woman's life.' Baloney!"

Ignoring for a second the insult cast upon those whose simply cherish the most fundamental aspect of liberty (the primacy of life), one must ask what lubricates the detractors if not politics?... a ghoulish fascination with death?... or is it the extermination of an unwanted pestilience in the form of a severly handicapped woman?

Hugh Hewitt shreds professor Juan Cole for his comparison of Republican leadership in Washington to the fanatics Muslim Kleptocracy that has spawned the death cult of terrorism.

At the same time, the anti-religion bias and rhetoric of the hard left specifically have leapt into public view again, as ordinary people supporting the parents find themselves denounced as fanatics and zealots. Liberal blogger and University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole went so far as to declare that"President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model."

This statement earned Cole a place on the Ward Churchill All-Stars and elicited from Professor James Q. Wilson the response that Cole's conclusion "of course is pure nonsense. It is hard to believe that a professor at a major university can utter such silliness, but if you want to hear silliness, sometimes you have to go to a university to hear it."

And as Maureen Dowd takes a dip in Professor Cole's fever swamp, Powerline chews through them both.

But what really caught my eye was Dowd's cheap but inevitable comparison of Schiavo's case to Bush v. Gore. She writes: "The first time [Republicans] snatched a case out of a Florida state court to give to a federal court, it was Bush v. Gore. This time it's Bush v. Constitution." What Dowd overlooks, of course, is that Supreme Court review of state court decisions does not constitute "snatching" a case out of state court. Under our constitutional system, the Supreme Court sits as the final arbiter of certain types of state court decision. But one wouldn't expect Dowd to know, or care about, this basic fact. It's enough that she was clever enough to connect, however superficially, her present grievance to the original sin from which all else flows -- the election of President Bush.

A brief review of the Democratic Underground reveals the propriety of the title as the lovecraftian inhabitants of that dark grotto continue foraging blindly through the filth and slime of their own sensibilities for that precious charm of wisdom... that will never be found there.

And today's LA Times editorial, exposes the fact that, for the Left, Terri Schiavo must die for the perceived sin of America... the 2000 election.

What Rehnquist thinks about the use and abuse of feeding tubes doesn't matter, or shouldn't. What does and should matter is what he thinks about federalism. Legally, this should be an easy case for the chief justice. Politically and personally, it may be harder. Five years ago, Rehnquist allowed politics to trump principle in the disgraceful decision of Bush vs. Gore. Fate has given him a chance for (frankly) a different lead on his eventual obituary. We hope he seizes it.

Well, it is a mute concern now for the editorial staff at the Times. The last hope for Terri has faltered today, as The Supreme Court of the United States rejects her parent's case. In absense of drastic measure she will die. But, Terri will not die in vain, and she will not die for the unearned guilt imposed by a nihilistic generation of vitriolic juvenile parasites bred on progressive relativism, nurturing their own suicidal state of moral confusion and self-loathing anguish to such a pathetic degree that they wish to inflict it on the very culture on which they feed... thus destroying both.

She will perish with the grief of a Nation of Men and Woman who will regret her passing, long in her absence and forever celebrate the time she spent on this Earth and the unity that flourished about her light in these final days terminating in Spring of the 5th year of the third millennium during the celebration of the sacrifice of one man that began the clock by changing mankind… and giving us the blessings of the lives that we cherish with such passion.

Mr.AtosThere's nothing like having your alarm set to music, on a station with knuckleheads for DJ's posing as informed commentators during 30-second soundbites between an insurance spot and an ancient Toto relic. The overrated lever-monkey might say something as profound as... and I paraphrase, ' the stock market is a volatile thing where you could make money one day and lose it all the next. It's not something I'D want to have my future tied to... like, Oh, say, with Social Security.'Lovely sentiment full of the wisdom and honesty of... Oh say, a fishstick. Well Fishhead,- ahem, Les Sarnoff at Kink 102 - you're either a fool or a liar. Because, either you (like most Americans) have a 401K into which you are pouring 10% to 20% of your earnings in preparation for your retirement - in which case, you Sir, are a misrepresenting facts even as you see them. Or you have no financial plan beyond retirement and will exercise your great talent for one-sided conversations with teenagers and over-aged adolescents, by working at Seven-Eleven waiting like creosote in the desert for diminishing drops of water in the form of your monthly SSN entitlement check - in which case you are a fool.Despite your personal metaphysical dilemmas, I suspect your less the fool and more the liar; prostituting talking points from the peddlers of your political agenda regardless of truth or consequences. Because as you well know, that private 401K retirement plan of yours is 100% invested in the stock market. And you continue to pour money into that account every month comforted with the knowledge that no matter how the market turns in any given year, historically there is no better bet for monetary growth. And you also know that Social Security in its current state will collapse by 2041. Privatization of a fragment... A FRAGMENT of Social Security will help ensure that it remains solvent for those who need it, and that my children don't have to be enslaved by confiscatory taxation on the order of 60% of their earnings to pay for your Cohibas, Scotch and a bungalow in Cannon Beach.There is one other possibilty, and that is that you actually believed what you said. Sadly if so, there's an adjective for that to.Granted, I should know better than to listen to an FM broadcast. The only one I can tolerate anyway is KGSR ...and outside of Central Texas it can only be streamed via the internet. But, Mrs. Atos likes FM. And like I was saying, there's just nothing like hearing cackling absurdity to break the morning snooze..... slamming off the evanescence of FM to face the dawn of AM.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Earlier this week, one of my left-leaning good friends and I were exchanging some humorous banter about the Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles, one of our favorites. My friend mentioned that one of his favorite lines in the movie, in addition to "Mongo - Santamaria!" was this:

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."

Until this point in time, I found this dialogue equally amusing. But given the context of the politically-oriented discussions I have with him along with other left-leaning friends, thinking about this dialogue caused me to reflect a little. (Note: as to whether or not the views of my good friend here are sarcastic or genuine is unknown, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since he grew up in a very "red" state and I consider him to be a good person.)

I work in a profession that is overwhelmingly leftist, in a city that is overwhelmingly leftist. I often get the feeling that my professional colleages have a genuine disdain for all things "red state". I would like to think that it's sarcasm, but it has become more blatant since the 2004 election. Many of the people around me really consider the "red-staters" to be "morons."

In spite of their rhetoric of accepting and embracing differences in people, it seems that many on the left hold a deep and pervasive prejudicial opinion of red-staters and people who live in rural areas. I now ask you leftists a question: did you ever stop to think that the red-staters find you to be superficial and mistakenly self-important? Did you ever think that they probably consider your opinion of them to be unworthy of both attention and comment? Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that the "common clay of the new west" choose not to belittle you because they consider such behavior to be impolite?

So I ask all who read this - who is less of a moron: a single, urban-dwelling, pottery-barn-shopping, J.Crew-wearing, nonfat-latte-drinking 30-year-old with a BA in Graphic Design? or a married-with-four-kids, rural-dwelling, wheat-farming, Carhartt-wearing, steak-eating 55-year-old with a high school diploma? It all depends, doesn't it? The point here is that to judge somebody at face value is contrary to both the best traditions of the American experience and true ethics/morality in general.

Thankfully, the Constitution grants us all the right to be "morons". But never forget that the definition of "moron" changes a little from New York, NY to Burns, OR. And never forget that we, in spite of our differing and well-considered opinions, are all in this Union together.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

But, she will go into shock from dehydration in the next few hours before she ever dies from malnutrition.

Regardless of your views in this matter, those are the facts. The United States Congress has acted along with the President of the United States and the Governor of Florida on her behalf. Tonight, U.S. District Judge James Whittemore twiddles away precious hours considering an appeal filed Monday by Schiavo's parents with no indication of action. (Fox News)

Opinions abound on this confusing moral issue. That's not surprising in a nation so utterly confused and divided regarding moral issues. Even given that, one can understand the passion inspiring those who wish to save Terri. In a culture that celebrates life, protection is afforded the living and decisions are rendered that ere in favor of life. What is deeply troubling, is the contrasting passion spewing from those who wish this woman dead. Read for instance, Captain Ed's criticism of a New York Time's piece for misrepresenting Terri's condition and the efforts to save her. Or Michelle Maulkin's curiosity about the attacks from Leftwing Bloggers. ABC News circulates the results of its own 'push poll' in order to conjure a bogus image of public opinion in the case (HT: Captain's Quarters and Hugh Hewitt). The L.A. Times goes so far as to compare Republican Congressman in this matter to Stalin. And Congressmen Barney Frank, John Lewis, and Robert Wexler railed in fits of public outrage against Republican political opportunism, ignoring completely the Democrats who erased the political line when it came to a judgement in favor of life, joining the President and the public to uphold the fundamental sanctity of human existence. What then does the Left uphold as a fundamental sanctity... this perhaps?

James Taranto effectively neutralizes the opposing defense of the husband's right as guardian to relinquish his wife's life in her behalf

Supporters of Michael Schiavo's effort to end his wife's life have asked how conservatives, who claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, can fail to respect his husbandly authority. The most obvious answer is that a man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being--a principle we never thought we'd see liberals question... But it is equally unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.

The Schiavo decision is lending credibility to a suspicion of mine that I have held for some time. In this case, one wonders why the Left is either profoundly silent on Terry's situation, or are ardently in favor of letting her die despite her parents' attempt to preserve her life and assuming parental authority over her being. Granted, her case has become obscured by rhetoric and conjecture. Review it yourself (TerrisFight, SaveTerri, Wall Street Journal) and come to your own conclusion. And while I have suggested we ere on the side of life in any case, my extended concern revolves around the urgency given this matter, not from those who wish her to live - that is quite understandable. No, the more curious degree of urgency comes, as I have said, from those who wish her dead.

Even as I complete my thoughts on Terri Schiavo's case this morning, the News has arrived of a judgement on the appeal siding with the Husband, denying a resumption of feeding. Hugh Hewitt has posted a brief summary of Judge Whittemore's ruling:

Terri continues to die this morning.

In order to understand the passion in this case, it might be necessary to review a more comprehensive context of contemporary socio-political conflict. I believe that this matter is related to other critical 'judicial' issues currently at play in the United States. Do let's look at the same sex marriage issue, or at least the fundamental considerations of that issue for the Left. The case in defense of traditional definitions of marriage are expressly concerned with the biological and historic relationship between a man and woman regarding the potential for offspring. For those on the Right, the issue is ultimately about the fundamental nature of existance and additionally citizenship. In this matter, the Left ignores natural law and the logical confines of reality, choosing instead to embrace arbitrary determinations of preference. They find no rational basis against expanding the traditional definition of marriage to include, at first phase, two men or two woman. Therefore they neglect (refuse) to identify natural reproduction as a legitimate biological condition worthy of consideration. Legal guardianship in the form of unions and adoptions are to be the priority conditions of human relations. Children happen, therefore parents exist. Parents posess children, so therefore anyone who comes into posession of a child is a parent. Parenthood, regardless of biological propriety, should therefore be a singular manifestation of government, rather than an historic institution of civilization respected by government. But, the flaw in this line of reasoning is that it neglects the nature of reproduction entirely, and likewise ignors the natural preconditions of relations as a factor of existence. It thereby erradicates the idea of "Family" as a natural condition, and recreates it as a legal condition with an arbitrary set of preconditions subject to consensual whim. Natural law has, therefore, become irrelevant to the Left in favor of... whimsical preference. Clearly, so to has the concept of Family.

If, in this case Terry's parents prevail and the courts rule in favor of parental rights, then that decision sets a precedent that will later be hard to overcome regarding the posession of children. Marriage establishes a relationship among a man and a woman in the context of reproduction. It also establishes a state of mutual respect and responsibility between a consenting man and woman. It does not, in this culture however, surrender one spouse's will and life to that of the other. While the Constitution cannot define Marriage ( it must however respect it), it does forbid the oppression of individuals. And in light of the situation that exists with Terri Schiavo, it must defer to the best interest of the individual's continued existence. It is not, nor should it ever be the State's role to evaluate the quality of existence for the purpose of approving or rejecting a continuation of that existence. Nor should it be the State's role to supercede the fundamental relationship of natural family in the absense of consent or criminal activity. Once we undermine the conditional aspects of parenthood in terms of marriage in law, as it relates to children, we nullify parental posession by natural right... by means of negating natural right as a state of precondition.

The Groningen Protocol is another case in point. According to the process of euthanasia established in the Dutch hospital, parental preferences in the matter of life and death can be overruled by 'Committee' authority. It is a case where the interests of the State or State-sponsored deliberative bodies exercise manifest authority over individual existence in defiance first of natural relations, and ultimately in defiance of inalienable rights. With American Courts looking increasingly abroad for legal rationalizations for desired rulings, the Groningen Protocol sets a chilling precedent to be followed. (See also the following articles: Here, Here, Here)

If the State becomes the final authority over ownership of individuals, inevitably parenthood will be afforded and regulated by the State and only the State. Once that is established by judicial precedent, as I think is happening in the Schiavo case, children can be managed as a resource according to State interest, and reproduction likewise controlled by judicial and ultimately legislative authority (Note: abortion is NOT reproduction). What, then are the implications of natural law when it has been thoroughly subjugated to arbitrary manifestations of popular consensus? That which was inalienable becomes manifested by leave of the State and We become the people of a government... that is not the government of its people. Not only is this the consequence of judicial activism, I believe that it is the goal of Neo-Marxist progressives. Biologic relations, individuality, and the notion of an inalienable existence must be denied in order for their goals to be applied assuming that it indeed takes a village to define a new collective order. Collectivism is not a natural condition of human existence. Individual existence is the state of natural entropy that must be entirely subdued in order for the Village of humanity to flourish. For that goal to occur, Natural Law must end... ... and Terri Schiavo must perish.UPDATE:03.23.05:0636The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Terri Schiavo is to die under the burden of moral confusion. The virtue of a Nation will die with her unless we reject the course this sets before us and the people - lawyers, judges, legislators and progressive(?) activists - that wish to offer us the affliction of protocol for the sustenance of liberty.Over at OKIE on the LAM, DB has been keeping vigil on this issue.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Mr.AtosDemocrat Members of the House and Senate staged an opposition rally in Washington D.C. on Wednesday with their friends at MoveOn.Org. You remember MoveOn? They were the group endorsing "Screaming Howard" Dean in the 2004 Presidential election, running adds likening George Bush to Hitler, and mainlining the wealth of billionaire Socialist George Soros in his effort to buy the outcome of a free election. They are the champions of fringe Left ideology in this nation and the Democrat party, including so-called 'centrist' Hillary Rodham-Clinton, is their political concubine... payed for with special interest contribution and clad in tawdry rhetoric to perform the duty of solicitation. On the podium were the usual suspects and peddlers of propogandistic half-truths - Byrd, Boxer, Durbin, Reid, Leahy - with one pleasant surprise in the form of Senator Clinton speaking openly and candidly for the record.

"...this is not a good thing to do. To upend the way the Senate has operated, just because you can for sheer political power? For partisan advantage? To basically end minority rights? To go ahead and consign Mr. Smith Goes To Washington to the dustbin of history? they know that what goes around comes around. And this cannot be good for either party, just as it is not good for the institution of the Senate or our country."

"... You know, some of the impetus behind this unfortunately is coming from some of the newer Republican members who don't yet see that there's a Constitutional, profound reason for us to have a difference between the way the House of Representatives is run, and the way the Senate is run. Now, some people say well, the Senate can be frustrating. Well, I know that. I know that from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, how frustrating it can be, obviously."

Obviously... the junior Senator of New York is, herself, confused about profound Constitutional reasoning. Or perhaps she simply resents being taught a profound lesson by newly elected legislators actually representing their home States.

The Claremont Institute has a comprehensive analysis of Constitutional reasoning in this matter. Mrs. Clinton might chance a review of the facts before assuming authority on an issue she obviously knows so little about... or presumes in her persistent condescension, that We know so little about.

Article II of the Constitution provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court [and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish]."4 As the text of the provision makes explicitly clear, the power to choose nominees — to "nominate" — is vested solely in the President,5 and the President also has the primary role to "appoint," albeit with the advice and consent of the Senate. The text of the clause itself thus demonstrates that the role envisioned for the Senate was a much more limited one that is currently being claimed.

We are afterall talking about the nomination process which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive branch. If Democrat Senators, in conjunction with their advise and consent authority, do not approve of a President's nomination then they should in good conscience, vote against that nominee's appointment. That is their right and responsibility afforded by the Constitution. By abusing the procedural tool of the filibuster to block nominees from a vote, a handful of Senators have seized the power of both nomination and appointment processes, in fact holding the Executive branch hostage to their agenda. Spurious Constitutional genuflecting notwithstanding, it is clear that what Senator Clinton and her minority colleagues want is a Super authority over Executive priority in defiance of original Constitutional intent. It is something that has never existed in American history in the matter of judicial appointments nor should it.

"Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

Mrs. Boxer... granted you may not be capable of comprehending this given an historic assessment of your intellect, but what members of MoveOn think regarding a Super Majority qualification for the approval of Presidential judicial appointments is virtually irrelevent. As a popular matter, that would be the subject of an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring debate, vote, and national ratification. If that is what you intend to propose, then your procedural options are certainly outlined accordingly. But, to pilfer such authority, not specifically authorized by the Constitution, by means of abuse of the filibuster in order to exercise the despotism of a fringe minority in the Legislative Branch, both subverts the intent of the Constitution and truly upends the balance of power outlined therein. It is you Mrs. Boxer and Mrs. Rodham-Clinton, and your Senate Democrat colleagues who are subverting Constitutional authority and attempting to forever alter the nature of checks and balances in favor of minority tyranny in one chamber of Congress.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Over at Ankle Biting Pundit, Bulldogpundit has framed the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of liberty and life. The values of Barbara Boxer and her party are 180 degrees out of phase with... well, humanity. It is so perfectly succinct that I wont even attempt a summary. Just go HERE to see and read.

Judge Richard Kramer has demonstrated himself to be incompetent in matters of law, and an imbecile when it comes to logic. In his ruling, Monday, striking down California laws that limit marriage to "a man and a woman..." he stated that,

"No rational basis exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners..."

Ignoring for an instant the historic condition of unification, which in itself constitutes rational or logical establishment of a cultural definition, the natural mechanism of human reproduction is indeed a rational basis for a concept of existence that must be acknowledged by law.

Rationality being consistent with or based on reason. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner is another way to describe logic. Logic can be defined as principles based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions. Mathematically speaking it is the capability of being a quotient of integers. The sum of 1 and 1 equals 2. Likewise, one male and one female (their sperm and an egg, respectively) begets a child.

Is this a preferential condition? No! Preference, spirituality, and emotion has nothing to do with logic.

The principles have been established through observation, as fact. A narrow consensus to the contrary will not change the fact. Law is not invented as a matter of preference, but rather is based in premise on nature and the fundamental conditions of existence. It is not arguable that as a fact, humanity has exactly two aspects... the Man (Male) and the Woman (Female). The unification of the two aspects of humanity creates a balance (much the same way that the Taoists consider the universe to be symmetrical oriented by Yin and Yang). The concept of unified balance creating a whole is an ancient principle that stretches back throughout 6000 years of known human history and likely beyond and has been exorably associated with the concept of Marriage (again, the balanced unification of humanity). With the creation of the first true modern democracy, the Constitutional Republic of the United States, the recognition of natural (inalienable) rights of Man (truncated term: Mankind, to be understood as man and women) were codified. Note that they were CODIFIED as existing by nature of existence and NOT defined as men do not posess the mandate to manifest the definition of freedom for others. It must be acknowledged by men and governments as a natural state of being of the individual by virtue of his and her existence. The Bill of Rights did just that and one's birth into this Republic and acceptance of citizenship is the promise that a citizen will acknowledge and maintain these principles accordingly. Birth being the key term at this point in the discussion, we can acknowledge that birth is the event at which existence is understood by the US Constitution. This is an arguable point to be sure, but for the sake of discussion, this threshold will suffice. Birth is a natural culmination of conception. And conception is the natural consequence of one action... the unification of a man and a women. Marriage, therefore, is the natural precept to the concept of inalienable rights. The accepted definition of Marriage, is the ideal condition of natural human existence. Marriage, therefore, is inalienably the unification of one man and one women with the express potential of propagating the human race in a free and natural manner.

All other relationships among men and women are matters of legality, to be defined by contract; including unions, partnerships, and the adoption of juvenile human beings from the natural state of their family posession by means of consent.

Judge Kramer's ruling is a contradiction of fact in defiance of logic. In nature, contradiction does not exist. Likewise, it does not belong in philosophy, policy, nor law.

Monday, March 14, 2005

To look at the online headlines, listen to the top of the hour news updates, or watch the network news, one might get the idea that the only major events of concern today are... Michael Jackson's celebrity perversions, the killing spree of a jailed rapist who should never have been able to get a gun, Scott Peterson...again, more judicial tyranny on behalf of gay marriage, and steroid use in American sports. But, what we're not hearing and seeing enough of is the courage of nearly a million Lebanese taking to the streets again today to demand independence in defiance of tyranical Syrian occupation and the oppression of its allied Hezbollah thugs. Claudia Rosett reports from the scene tonight,

These demonstrators want the truth about who was behind the bomb blast that on February 14 killed Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former prime minister. Today's protest will mark the four-week anniversary of his murder, which ignited Lebanon's democratic uprising. The turnout will be closely watched worldwide, seen as the democratic opposition's rejoinder to two rallies staged this past week by the terrorist group Hezbollah, which has now hitched its wagon - or, some fear, its rocket launchers - to the Cedar Revolution.

Following the American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the massive Iraqi election turnout this past January, the balance is shifting in the Arab world. InLebanon, which has emerged over the past month as the new frontline of change, Hariri's death - which many blame on Syria - was not the prime cause. It was more, as one opposition member puts it, "the drop of water that finally burst the dam." The truth these protesters are after goes well beyond finding out who, precisely, set up the bomb blast that in killing Hariri blew out windows and shut down buildings still under repair hundreds of yards from the crater.

It is incumbent on the American Left to stand up immediately, joining the voices of the Right in vocal unified support of the courageous people of Lebanon… even in defiance of politics. We can resume the argument later regarding the efficacy of the Bush Doctrine, Social Security Reform, and Washington's installed Governor. What is happening in Beirut transcends the petty biases regarding policy and partisanship. We are afterall, the torch of freedom in a gale of insanity. An ounce of unified Western pressure now would cause Syria to fold without violence. But, if the anti-Democracy forces sense that they will be handing the world Left and American liberal partisans a victory over President Bush via their obstinance, they will ensure a bloody slaughter to punctuate the Bush Administration's Middle East policy as a dowry to accompany their peculiar consumation. As Rosett puts it...

The tragedy would be if the world community, having finally noticed that the totalitarian regime of Syria was desperately unhealthy for Lebanon, should now give a pass to the terrorists of Hezbollah. Having watched the democratic opposition gain momentum for the first three weeks following Hariri's death, Hezbollah leaders last week stole some tactics from the democrats, wrapped themselves for the first time in the Lebanese flag, held a huge rally last Tuesday in Beirut and a smaller one yesterday in southern Lebanon, and are now singing the national anthem while paradoxically parading pictures of President Assad. By the time Hezbollah held its second demonstration, all of five days after its sudden adoption of the Lebanese flag, experts both in Lebanon and abroad were already deep in discussion over whether, as the New York Times put it in an editorial yesterday morning, Hezbollah leader "Sheikh Nasrallah is not above changing his stripes, if it is politically expedient."

Chaos is the enemy of freedom… and a mutual ally of irrational little men intent on laying despotic claim to other's inalienable destiny. The only way for liberty to triumph, is for good men and women to do... something. Here's a million of them.

Mr.AtosBrent Bozell blugeons reality T.V. over the weekend, while noting its fatal plunge into sleezy and perverse teen exploitation.

Surely parents can do better than turn out children whose major goal in life is to be on television and become a star. But thanks to the "reality" show format, we're exposed on nearly every night of the week to young people parading their clawing, scraping ambition to become famous in nearly every desperate look-at-me field.

He focuses his attention on one show in paricular - WB's, "The Starlet" - which has emerged as one of the most depraved shows in a genre of television productions already scraping the bottom of cultural depravity.

The show took the predictable turn into the gutter in Episode Two, in which the girls were told the theme was "seduction and passion," but they had no idea what it was they were going to be seducing. They started by acting slutty and sensual with -- you won't believe this -- a two-foot teddy bear in a director's chair. Now that's a "harrowing" acting class. Can you imagine how proud you'd be of your daughter making it to Hollywood so she could strip in front of a stuffed animal on national television?

From there, the competing starlets graduated to stripteases in front of male human beings, and in the end, everyone seemed most pleased with the performance of the 18-year-old contestant we're told is a virgin. Congratulations, you've come so far from that place of teenage innocence to convincing depravity with a stranger.

But these exploitative titillation scenes were nothing compared to the weekly screen test, where the aspirants were told they'd be filmed kissing one of their fellow contestants in the hot tub in a lesbian love scene.

The sad reality of ratings means that someone is watching. Obviously there is a target market for WB's advertisers, culling America for circles of adolescent jerks, stalkers, rapists, voyers, child sex-offenders, and other closet deviants to lend cultural credibility and sell allergy medications, automobiles, and wireless plans.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

It was one of the most startling sights I have seen in quite some time. I was walking the dog just after dark and happened to be staring up at Orion when a blue streak lit the sky in a slow glide to the west, seemingly right into the Pacific with a tremendous flash.

After the attack by American Troops in Iraq on an Italian Journalist and her security entourage, Jason Kernahan of The Online Journal delivers a startling observation...

...in reality, overrated bloggers, credited with [Eason Jordan's] demise, offered nothing more than organized indignation to the development of this story. And as you will see, it would have taken little investigative effort to discover that Jordan was actually telling the truth.

He concludes of course, that American soldiers are indeed assassinating journalists in Iraq. So much for supporting the troops, much less affording them the benefit of the doubt equivalent with that of an anti-American communist European Journalist.

The story notes Eason Jordan's curious lack of self defense, and his uneventful resignation...

So with a position so easily defended it is perplexing that Eason Jordon had so few answers for his critics. Worst of all was his inability to explain CNN's own silence on these matters.

This is indeed curious behavior for a seasoned journalist with a scoop so profoundly serious and fundamentally transparent that it can be demonstrated beyond doubt by frivolous conjecture and the eyewitness account of one fortunate survivor. One wonders how a force so inept as to fill an ostensibly stationary target with automatic weapons fire and still fail to eliminate said target, could conduct a coordinated campaign of assasination. Nevertheless, the author goes on to attribute Jordan's perfunctory abdication to the inevitability of circumstance.

This failure, however, is quite typical of this new era of consumerjournalism. In fact, for years the dictum "if it bleeds, it leads" has been the guiding rule of news coverage. But now such blatant pandering has led to grossly deficient and sometimes even erroneous news reporting.

Put simply, in the aftermath of 9/11, with nationalism at an all-time high, news agencies have had to adjust their coverage to retain their market share. And consequently, they have been compelled to ignore news stories that Americans simply don't want to hear.

The allegations of deliberate assassination by Giuliana Sgrena against the US military have provoked the lunatics of the International Tinfoil Hat Brigade, which unfortunately has to come up with increasingly ridiculous explanations of how American soldiers filled a car with bullets but left only two or three holes in the car, killed one person but left two people alive, including the one who was the supposed target of the attempted assassination, and covered it up while letting the eyewitnesses go.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte was meeting with the top U.S. commander in Iraq near Baghdad airport when soldiers deployed to protect the ambassador mistakenly killed an Italian agent, an embassy spokesman said Friday.

Taking into account the intensity of the ongoing suicide bombing campaign of Al Quaida insurgents, their bounty on American's, and the opportunity presented by high profile targets, it is certainly understandable that defenders of a secure checkpoint might be less... tolerant... of suspicious targets. And as the truth unfolds, the military's testimony regarding the incident proves consistent while Ms. Sgrena's own recollections continue to reveal... and unravel.

The driver twice called the embassy and in Italy that we were heading towards the airport that I knew was heavily patrolled by U.S. troops. They told me that we were less than a kilometer away...when...I only remember fire. At that point, a rain of fire and bullets hit us, shutting up forever the cheerful voices of a few minutes earlier.

The driver started yelling that we were Italians. "We are Italians, we are Italians." Nicola Calipari threw himself on me to protect me and immediately, I repeat, immediately I heard his last breath as he was dying on me. I must have felt physical pain. I didn't know why. But then I realized my mind went immediately to the things the captors had told me. They declared that they were committed to the fullest to freeing me but I had to be careful, "the Americans don't want you to go back." Then when they had told me I considered those words superfluous and ideological. At that moment they risked acquiring the flavor of the bitterest of truths, at this time I cannot tell you the rest.

The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who was wounded by American fire last Friday soon after being released by kidnappers in Baghdad, has said that she does not think that the Americans were trying to kill her. "I never said that they wanted to kill me," she said on a television talk show, "but the mechanics of what happened were those of an attack."

The BBC Reports that the Italian Agent killed in the incident, Nicola Calipari, seemingly neglected to provide Coalition Authorities with information regarding his activities.

... press quotes an Italian general who liaised between US forces and Italian intelligence as saying he did not know Calipari was on a rescue bid.

His report is now in the hands of Rome prosecutors investigating the killing. According to newspaper La Repubblica, Gen Mario Marioli helped the two Italian secret service agents obtain a special badge from the coalition forces on their arrival in Baghdad.

But Gen Marioli, who is the coalition forces' second-in-command, reportedly was unaware that the officers were on a mission to free Ms Sgrena, and so the information he passed on to US officials was incomplete.

Gen Marioli's testimony is crucial because he is the man who was keeping the US forces informed of the car's arrival before the fatal shooting, in which a US patrol killed the secret service agent and injured Ms Sgrena and a second officer.

Gen Marioli's version, as reported by the papers, also contradicts a reconstruction by the Italian government and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who said the US military had been advised that Ms Sgrena was on board the car.

The US military have said they had no knowledge of the rescue mission.

This story goes on to suggest the reason for the covert nature of the rescue operation may have been that Coalition policy forbids negotiations with terrorist insurgents. Paying millions of dollars in bounty for the release of a hostage encourages more kidnappings, undermines security efforts, prolongs conflict and ultimately endangers the Iraqi people. While it is certainly unfortunate that Ms. Sgrena was injured, and even more regrettable that Mr. Calipari was killed, the reality of a combat zone - especially one as spontaneously hostile as Baghdad - reveals its bloody condition daily. The Soldiers manning those checkpoints don't have the luxury to relent their vigilance to the disposition of a Roman intersection. If their guard fails, people die by the dozens. Ms. Sgrena lives to recollect her fortune at retaining her head while manifesting a seething hatred for the men and women that defend Western Civilization on the edge of chaos, and never considering the scores whose blood will drench every dollar paid for her liberation... a price far higher than the value of the merchandise it purchased.

As for Jason Kernahan's concerns regarding the so-called contagion of silence in media and journalism... Open dissent, as we have seen for the last several years is hardly in short supply in this nation, much less around the world. Nor is baseless conjecture, flagrant misrepresentation, and reckless condemnation rare as we note that Ms. Sgrena's latest revelations will merit no retraction of Mr. Kernahan's absurd accusations. Silence!? Really! Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, Al Franken, Il Manifesto, Ted Rall can be named as but a few sources of irrational objection to American policy. If the silence of dissent of which Mr. Kernahan speaks is truly contagious, then the voices of the Left are surely immune to the epidemic of truth...